Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

(THE CRISIS IN OUR PARTY)

C. Beginning of the Congress. The Organising Committee
    Incident

The most convenient way to analyse the debates and the voting is
      to take them in the order of the Congress sittings, so as
      successively to note the political shades as they became more
      and more apparent. Only when absolutely necessary will
      departures from the chronological order be made for the purpose
      of considering together closely allied questions or similar
      groupings. For the sake of impartiality, we shall endeavour to
      mention all the more important votes, omitting,of course, the
      innumerable votes on minor issues, which took up an inordinate
      amount of time at our Congress (owing partly to our inexperience
      and inefficiency in dividing the material between the
      commissions and the plenary sittings, and partly to quibbling
      which bordered on obstruction).

The first question to evoke a debate which began to reveal
      differences of shades was whether first place should be given
      (on the Congress “order of business”) to the item: “Position of
      the Bund in the Party” (Minutes, pp. 29-33). From the standpoint
      of theIskra-ists, which was advocated byPlekhanov, Martov,Trotsky,
      and myself, there could be no doubt on this score. The Bund’s
      withdrawal from the Party strikingly bore out our view: if the
      Bund refused to go our way and accept the principles of
      organisation which the majority of the Party shared withIskra, it was useless and senseless to “make believe”
      that we were going the same way and only drag out the Congress
      (as the Bundists did drag it out). The matter had already been
      fully clarified in our literature, and it was apparent to any at
      all thoughtful Party member that all that remained was to put
      the question frankly, and bluntly and honestly make the choice:
      autonomy (in which case we go the same way), or federation (in
      which case our ways part).

Evasive in their entire policy, the Bundists wanted to be
      evasive here too and postpone the matter. They were joined by
      Comrade Akimov, who, evidently on behalf of all the followers ofRabocheye Dyelo, at once brought up the differences
      withIskraover questions of organisation (Minutes,
      p. 31). The Bund andRabocheye Dyelowere supported by
      Comrade Makhov (representing the two votes of the Nikolayev
      Committee—which shortly before had expressed its solidarity
      withIskra!). To Comrade Makhov the matter was
      altogether unclear, and another “sore spot”, he considered, was
      “the question of a democratic system or, on the contrary [mark
      this!], centralism”—exactly like the majority of our
      present “Party” editorial board, who at the Congress had not yet
      noticed this “sore spot”!

Thus theIskra-ists were opposed by the Bund,Rabocheye Dyeloand Comrade Makhov, who together
      controlled the ten votes which were cast against us
      (p. 33).Thirty voteswere castin
      favour—this is the figure, as we shall seelater,
      around which the votes of theIskra-ists often
      fluctuated. Eleven abstained, apparently not taking the side of
      either of the contending “parties”. It is interesting to note
      that when we took the vote on Paragraph 2 of the Rules of the
      Bund (it was the rejection of this Paragraph 2 that caused the
      Bund to withdraw from the Party), the votes in favour of it and
      the abstentions also amounted to ten (Minutes, p. 289), the
      abstainers being the threeRabocheye Dyelo-ists
      (Brouckère, Martynov, and Akimov) and Comrade
      Makhov. Clearly, the grouping in the vote on theplaceof the Bund item on the agenda wasnot fortuitous.
      Clearly, all these comrades differed withIskranot
      only on the technical question of the order of discussion, butin essence as well. In the case ofRabocheye
      Dyelo, this difference in essence is clear to everyone,
      while Comrade Makhov gave an inimitable description of his
      attitude in the speech he made on the withdrawal of the Bund
      (Minutes, pp. 289-90). It is worth while dwelling on this
      speech. Comrade Makhov said that after the resolution rejecting
      federation, “the position of the Bund in the R.S.D.L.P. ceased
      to be for me a question of principle and became a question of
      practical politics in relation to an historically evolved
      national organisation”. “Here,” the speaker continued, “I could
      not but take into account all the consequences that might follow
      from our vote, and would therefore have voted for Paragraph 2 in
      its entirety.” Comrade Makhov has admirably imbibed the spirit
      of “practical politics”: in principle he hadalreadyrejected federation, andthereforein practicehe
      would have votedfor including in the Rules a point that
      signified federation! And this “practical” comrade explained his
      profound position of principle in the following words: “But [the
      famous Shchedrin “but”!] since my voting one way or the other
      would only have significance in principle [!!] and could not be
      of any practical importance, in view of the almost unanimous
      vote of all the other Congress delegates, I preferred to abstain
      in order to bring out in principle [God preserve us from such
      principles!] the difference between my position on this question
      and the position of the Bund delegates, who voted in
      favour. Conversely, I would have voted in favour if the Bund
      delegates had abstained, as they had at first insisted.” Can you
      make head or tail of it? A man of principle abstainsfrom loudly
      saying “Yes” because practically it is useless when everybody
      else says “No”.

After the vote on the place of the Bund item on the agenda, the
      question of the Borba group cropped up at the Congress; it too
      led to an extremely interesting grouping and was closely bound
      up with the “sorest” point at the Congress, namely, the personal
      composition of the central bodies. The committee appointed to
      determine the composition of the Congress pronounced against
      inviting the Borba group, in accordance with atwice-adopteddecision of the Organising Committee (see
      Minutes, pp. 383 and 375) and the report ofthe latter’s
      representatives on this committee(p. 35).

Thereupon Comrade Egorov,a member of the Organising
      Committee, declared that “the question of Borba” (mark, of
      Borba, not of some particular member of it) was “new to him”,
      and demanded an adjournment. How a question on which the
      Organising Committee had twice taken a decision could be new to
      a member of the Organising Committee remains a mystery. During
      the adjournment the Organising Committee held a meeting
      (Minutes, p. 40), attended by such of its members as happened to
      be at the Congress (several members of theOrganising Committee,
      old members of theIskraorganisation, were not at the

				Congress).[1]Then began a
      debate about Borba. TheRabocheye Dyelo-ists spoke in
      favour (Martynov, Akimov, and Brouckère—pp. 36-38),
      theIskra-ists (Pavlovich, Sorokin,

Lange,[3]Trotsky,
      Martov, and others)—against. Again the Congress split up
      into the grouping with which we are already familiar. The
      struggle over Borba was a stubborn one, and Comrade Martov made
      a very circumstantial (p. 38) and “militant” speech, in which he
      rightly referred to “inequality of representation” of the groups
      in Russia and abroad, and said that it would hardly be “well” to
      allow a foreign group any “privilege” (golden words,
      particularly edifying today, in the light of the events since
      the Congress!), and that we should not encourage "the
      organisational chaos in the Party that was characterised by a
      disunity not justified by any considerationsof principle" (one
      right in the eye for . . . the “minority” at our Party
      Congress!). Except for the followers ofRabocheye
      Dyelo,nobodycame out openly and with reasoned
      motives in favour of Borba until the list of speakers was closed
      (p. 40). It should be said in fairness to Comrade Akimov and his
      friends that they at least did not wriggle and hide, but frankly
      advocated their line, frankly said what they wanted.

Afterthe list of speakers had been closed, when it was
      already out of order to speakon the issue itself,Comrade Egorov “insistently demanded that a decision just
      adopted by the Organising Committee be heard”. It is not
      surprising that the delegates were outraged at this manoeuvre,
      and Comrade Plekhanov, the chairman, expressed his “astonishment
      that Comrade Egorov should insist upon his demand”. One thing or
      the other, one would think: either take an open and definite
      stand before the whole Congress on the question at issue, or say
      nothing at all. But to allow the list of speakers to be closed
      and then, under the guise of a “reply to the debate”, confront
      the Congress with anewdecision of the Organising
      Committee on the very subject that had been under discussion,
      was like a stab in the back!

When the sitting was resumed after dinner, the Bureau still in
      perplexity, decided to waive “formalities” and resort to the
      last method, adopted at congresses only in extreme cases, viz.,
      “comradely explanation”. The spokesman of the Organising
      Committee, Popov, announced the committee’s decision, which had
      been adopted by all its members against one, Pavlovich (p. 43),
      and which recommended the Congress to invite Ryazanov.

Pavlovich declared that he had challenged and continued to
      challenge the lawfulness of the Organising Committee meeting,
      and that the Committee’s new decision “contradicts its
      earlier decision”. This statement caused an uproar. Comrade
      Egorov, also an Organising Committee member and a member of theYuzhny Rabochygroup, evaded answering on the actual
      point in question and tried to make the central issue one of
      discipline. He claimed that Comrade Pavlovich had violated Party
      discipline (!), for, having heard his protest, the Organising
      Committee had decided “not to lay Pavlovich’s dissenting opinion
      before the Congress”. The debate shifted to the question of
      Party discipline, and Plekhanov,amid the loud applause of the
      delegates, explained for the edification of Comrade Egorov that“we have no such thing as binding instructions” (p. 42;
      cf. p. 379, Regulations for the Congress, Point 7: “The powers
      of delegates must not be restricted by binding instructions. In
      the exercise of their powers, delegates are absolutely free and
      independent”). “The Congress is the supreme Party authority”,
      and, consequently, he violates Party discipline and the Congress
      Regulations who in any way restricts any delegate in takingdirectlyto the Congressanyquestion of Party
      life whatsoever. The issue thus came down to this: circles or a
      party? Were the rights of delegates to be restricted at the
      Congress in the name of the imaginary rights or rules of the
      various bodies and circles, or were all lower bodies and old
      groups to becompletely, and not nominally but
      actually, disbanded in face of the Congress, pending the
      creation of genuinely Party official institutions? The reader
      will already see from this how profoundly important from the
      standpoint of principle was this dispute at the very outset (the
      third sitting) of this Congress whose purpose was the actual
      restoration of the Party. Focused in this dispute, as it were,
      was the conflict between the old circles and small groups (such
      asYuzhny Rabochy)and the renascent Party. And the
      anti-Iskragroups at once revealed themselves: the
      Bundist Abramson, Comrade Martynov, that ardent ally of the
      presentIskraeditorial board, and our friend Cornrade
      Makhov all sided with Egorov and theYuzhny Rabochygroup against Pavlovich. Comrade Martynov, who now vies with
      Martov and Axelrod in sporting “democracy” in organisation, even
      cited the example of . . . the army, where an appeal to a
      superior authority can only be made through a lower one!! The
      true meaning of this “compact” anti-Iskraopposition
      was quite clear to everyone who was present at the Congress or
      who had carefully followed the internal history of our Party
      prior to the Congress. It was the purpose of the opposition
      (perhaps not always realised by all of its representatives, and
      sometimes pursued by force of inertia) to guard the
      independence, individualism and parochial interests of the
      small, petty groups from being swallowed up in the broad Party
      that was being built on theIskraprinciples.

It was precisely from this angle that the question was
      approached by Comrade Martov, who had not yet joined forces with
      Martynov. Comrade Martov vigorously took the field, and rightly
      so, against those whose “notion of Party discipline does not go
      beyond a revolutionary’s duty to the particular group of alowerorder to which he belongs”. “Nocompulsory[Martov’s italics] grouping can be tolerated
      within a united Party,” he explained to the champions of the
      circle mentality, not foreseeing what a flail these words would
      be for his own political conduct at the end of the Congress and
      after.... A compulsory grouping cannot be tolerated in the
      case of the Organising Committee, but can quite well be
      tolerated in the case of the editorial board. Martov condemns a
      compulsory grouping when he looks at it from the centre, but
      Martov defends it the moment he finds himself dissatisfied with
      the composition of the centre....

It is interesting to note that in his speech Comrade Martov laid
      particular stress not only on Comrade Egorov’s “profound error”,
      but also on the political instability the Organising Committee
      had displayed. “A recommendation has been submitted on behalf of
      the Organising Committee,” he exclaimed in just indignation,
      “whichruns counterto the committee report [based, we
      will add, on the report of members of the Organising
      Committee—p. 43, Koltsov’s remarks] andto the
      Organising Committee’s own earlier recommendations.” (My
      italics.) As we see,at that time, before his
      “swing-over”, Martov clearly realised that substituting Ryazanov
      for Borba in no way removed the utter contradictoriness and
      inconsistency of the Organising Committee’s actions (Party
      members may learn from the League Congress Minutes, p. 57, how
      Martov conceived the matter after his swing-over). Martov did
      not confine himself then to analysing the issue of discipline;
      he bluntly asked the Organising Committee: “What new
      circumstance has arisen to necessitate thechange?” (My
      italics.) And, indeed, when the Organ ising Committee made its
      recommendation, it did not even have the courage to defend its
      opinion openly, as Akimov and the others did. Martov denies this
      (League Minutes p. 56), but whoever reads the minutes of the
      Congress will see that he is mistaken. Popov, in submitting the
      Organising Committee recommendation,did not say a wordabout themotives (Party Congress Minutes, p. 41). Egorov
      shifted the issue to one of discipline, and all he said on the
      question itself was: "The Organising Committee may have had new
      reasons [but whether it did, and what those new reasons were, is
      unknown]; it could have forgotten to nominate somebody, and so
      on. [This “and so on” was the speaker’s sole refuge, for the
      Organising Committee could not haveforgottenabout
      Borba, which it had discussed twice before the Congress and once
      in the committee.] The Organising Committee did not adopt this
      decision because it has changed its attitude towards the Borba
      group, but because it wants to remove unnecessary rocks in the
      path of the Party’s future central organisation at the very
      outset of its activities." This is not a reason, but an evasion
      of a reason. Every sincere Social-Democrat (and we do not
      entertain the least doubt about the sincerity of any Congress
      delegate) is concerned to remove whathe considersto
      be sunken rocks, and to remove them bythose methodswhichhe considersadvisable. Giving reasons means
      explicitly stating and explaining one’s view of things, and not
      making shift with truisms. And they could not give a reason
      without “changing their attitude towards Borba”, because in its
      earlier and contrary decisions the Organising Committee had also
      been concerned to remove sunken rocks, but it had then regarded
      the very opposite as “rocks”. And Comrade Martov very severely
      and very rightly attacked this argument, saying that it was
      “petty” and inspired by a wish to “burke the
      issue”, and advising the Organising Committee “not to
      be afraid of what people will say”. These words
      characterise perfectly the essential nature of the political
      shade which played so large a part at the Congress and which is
      distinguished precisely by its want of independence, its
      pettiness, its lack of a line of its own, its fear of what
      people will say, its constant vacillation between the two
      definite sides, its fear of plainly stating itscredo—in a word, by all the features of a

     “Marsh”.[2][2]There are people in our Party today
      who are horrified when they hear this word, and raise an outcry
      about uncomradely methods of controversy. A strange perversion
      of sensibility due to . . . a misapplied sense of official form!
      There is scarcely a political party acquainted with internal
      struggles that has managed to do without this term, by which the
      unstable elements who vacillate between the contendingsides
      have always been designated. Even the Germans, who know how to
      keep their internal struggles within very definite bounds
      indeed, are not offended by the wordversumpft(sunk in
      the marsh—Ed.)are not horrified, and do not
      display ridiculous official prudery. —Lenin

A consequence of this political spinelessness of the unstable
      group was, incidentally, thatno oneexcept the Bundist
      Yudin (p. 53) did put before the Congress a resolution to invite
      one of the members of the Borba group. Yudin’s resolution
      received five votes—all Bundists, apparently: the
      vacillating elements had changed sides again! How large was the
      vote of the middle group is shown approximately by the voting on
      the resolutions of Koltsov and Yudin on this question: theIskra-ist received thirty-two votes (p. 47), the
      Bundist received sixteen, that is, in addition to the eight
      anti-Iskra-ist votes, the two votes of Comrade Makhov
      (cf. p. 46), the four votes of the members of theYuzhny
      Rabochygroup, and two others. We shall show in a moment
      that this alignment can by no means be regarded as accidental;
      but first let us briefly note Martov’spresentopinion
      of this Organising Committee incident. Martov maintained at the
      League that “Pavlovich and others fanned passions”. One has only
      to consult the Congress Minutes to see that the longest, most
      heated and sharpest speeches against Borba and the Organising
      Committee were delivered by Martov himself. By trying to lay the
      “blame” on Pavlovich he only demonstrates his own instability:
      it was Pavlovich he helped to elect prior to the Congress as the
      seventh member of the editorial board; at the Congress he fully
      associated himself with Pavlovich (p. 44) against Egorov; but
      afterwards, having suffered defeat at the hands of Pavlovich, he
      began to accuse him of “fanning passions”. This is ludicrous.

Martov waxes ironical inIskra(No. 56) over the
      importance that was attached to whether X or Y should be
      invited. But again the irony turns against Martov, for it was
      this Organising Committee incident that started the dispute over
      such an “important” question as inviting X or Y on to the
      Central Committee or the Central Organ. It is unseemly to
      measure with two different yardsticks, depending on whether the
      matter concernsyour own“group of a lower order”
      (relative to the Party) orsomeone else’s. This is
      precisely a philistine and circle, not a Party attitude. A
      simple comparisonof Martov’s speech at the League (p. 57) with
      his speech at the Congress (p. 44) sufficiently demonstrates
      this. “I can not understand,” Martov said,inter alia,at the League, “how people can insist on calling themselvesIskra-ists and at the same time be ashamed of beingIskra-ists.” A strange failure to understand the
      difference between “calling oneself” and “being”—between
      word and deed. Martov himself, at the Congress,called
      himselfan opponent of compulsory groupings, yet, after the
      Congress, came tobea supporter of them....

[1]Concerning this meeting, see the “Letter” of
Pavlovich,[4]who was a member of the Organising Committee and who before the
Congress wasunanimouslyelected as the editorial board’s trusted
representative, its seventh member (League Minutes, p. 44). —Lenin

[2]Note: 
This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[3]Sorokin—pseudonym of the Bolshevik N. E. Bauman;Lange—pseudonym of the Bolshevik A. M. Stopani.

[4]Pavlovich,Letter to the Comrades on the Second Congress of
      the R. S. D. L. P.,Geneva, 1904.